Thread by @robreich

"Philanthropy, as far as I can see, is rapidly becoming the recognizable mark of a wicked man" -- G.K. Chesterton, 1909.

In these days of criticizing Sackler and Epstein philanthropy, it's worth remembering that the complaints about tainted money and tainted donors are old.

Or consider what President Roosevelt and Samuel Gompers said of John D. Rockefeller's idea of creating the Rockefeller Foundation:

.@lessig's post about @Joi & @medialab distinguishes appropriately between well-intentioned people with tainted money (R.J. Reynolds) and bad people with clean money (presumably Jeffrey Epstein) and advises rejecting tainted money while accepting money anonymously from bad people

But anonymity doesn't solve the problem here. For one thing, Lessig's essay is self-refuting, describing the Epstein gift as a ticking time bomb, waiting for someone to disclose it and ruin the reputation of the Media Lab. So anonymity can't be guaranteed.

And even if Epstein's cover hadn't been blown, he was hardly anonymous to at least some members of the Media Lab. He came, after all, to participate in meetings. And he almost surely spoke about his connections to MIT with his own network of people in the Edge community.

So what should nonprofits do about tainted money and donors who are bad people? There are no simple answers, and this reveals yet again how the terrain of philanthropy is morally and politically complex.

I write about this in Just Giving: Why Philanthropy is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better. And I strongly recommend @chiaracordelli's chapter in Philanthropy in Democratic Societies. She also appears as the moral conscience at the end of @AnandWrites Winners Take All.

Here are two thoughts.

First, with tainted money we have to start talking about reparations and limiting the discretion of any donor. If you earn the money illegitimately, then the best philanthropy can't erase the initial stain.

If I steal your fancy watch, bring it to the pawn shop and then donate the $500 to @GiveWell's top charity, improving human welfare, you don't excuse the theft just because I directed the proceeds to a good cause. I owe you a repair for the theft.

So far as I can make out, these are the circumstances with Sackler philanthropy. Criminal proceedings should compel penalty and restitution, and in the meantime the only philanthropy the world should accept from the Sacklers is donations to orgs fighting the opioid crisis.

Second, with clean money from tainted people, every nonprofit has to consider their role in reputational laundering. Different orgs will strike the balance in different ways, and there will be reasonable disagreement about what counts as a bad donor.

The answer to this is not anonymity. It's disclosure. Make transparent the framework for decisionmaking. And let outsiders know when money has been accepted.